Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 08 Hansard (Tuesday, 16 August 2011) . . Page.. 3226 ..


portfolios. We have seen him, through his latest action, essentially refuse to condemn law breakers. These things that basically are the embodiment of who and what Mr Rattenbury is are completely contrary to his role of being the Speaker. I do not understand why he is doing it.

Why would you want to be a Speaker? Is it because you wanted to put the role of the Assembly first or because you had been working in the Assembly? Maybe it was the experience of working in the Assembly—it is certainly not that case. But it is confusing. Is it the prestige of the position? Is it the power of the position? What are the motives? I certainly do not understand and I think that Mr Rattenbury, in some regard, owes an explanation to this place as to why it is that he has taken on the role of Speaker.

It is quite clear that he still wants to be the activist. It is quite clear that he still wants to be the radical. It is quite clear that he still wants to support Greenpeace both in their actions and in their ideology. But what is not clear, and he has never been clear, is why he wants to be the Speaker. It just dumbfounds me. Is it the prestige? Is it the power? Is it the resources that go with it? What is his motivation?

I do not understand because I think that this side of the Assembly are questioning it. I think probably those on the other side are. Is it about keeping the Greens-Labor agreement together? Is it about defusing a power struggle within the Greens and the convenor/leader of the Greens? What is the motivation? I certainly would love to hear from the Speaker, be it in this forum or another, why on earth he sits in that chair degrading the position of Speaker. What is in it for him? There is certainly nothing in it for the Assembly.

Question put:

That Mr Smyth’s amendment to Mr Corbell’s proposed amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 6

Noes 11

Mr Coe

Mr Smyth

Mr Barr

Mr Hargreaves

Mr Doszpot

Dr Bourke

Ms Hunter

Mrs Dunne

Ms Bresnan

Ms Le Couteur

Mr Hanson

Ms Burch

Ms Porter

Mr Seselja

Mr Corbell

Mr Rattenbury

Ms Gallagher

Question so resolved in the negative.

Question put:

That Mr Corbell’s amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—


Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . . Video